Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
5
debates
60.0%
won
Topic
#4980

Can war ever be justified?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Tags
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1493
rating
25
debates
60.0%
won
Description

I (Kouen) will argue that war can be justified in multiple instances (at least two). The opponent will argue in favor of war never being justified.

Round 1
Pro
#1
War can be justified in multiple instances. One of them is when a country has to defend itself. A recent example is Ukraine engaging in a war with Russia. Once Russia started invading Ukraine, Ukraine had a moral obligation to defend themselves and not let aggressors take their country. Their sovereignty, civilians' lives, and infrastructures were all at stake. This is always the case with a country getting invaded by another. So countries must go to war in order to defend themselves from an attacker.

Another case in which war is justified is when a population wants freedom. An example is people who lived in current day Haiti. They used to be slaves and were under a colonial ruling by the French. They revolted and obtained freedom. Should they have accepted to remain slaves and not engage in war? I don't think so. Another exemple is the British taxing the American colonies in order to pay for the losses in their wars against France. Americans didn't want to pay, and the conflict escalated. The war started by Americans was justified since the British blatantly tried to exploit them by trying to make them pay for their own losses. These were only two exemples amongst many others. When a group of people feels severe injustice from another group of people that controls them, it's justified for this oppressed group to revolt and cause a war. 

Con
#2
Thanks for debate Pro. 
Thanks to the audience. 

This round's contents
In round 1, I am laying out my position. In round 2 I will examine pro's round 1 & address pro's round 2 comments. Round 3 I will summarize and address anything new from round 3. 


Opening
War. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing. Say it again! 

War is a series of violence or violent acts to achieve a goal. Violence itself can be neutral like demolition, bad like conquest, or good like when a doctor uses a scalpel. 

war is never justified because: 
1) There are negative effects from war, on all persons, that out weigh reasons for war.  

Long term economic effects

Global health is effected

Environmental detriments 

Social impacts

Psychological impacts 
[Pdf available]

Each link provides an article giving insight to damages that war has on each of us. This damage extends beyond just death. Causing long term effects that can develop new wars, economic struggles or collapse, unnecessary debt,  long term psychological issues, societal issues, and more. 

All these things can be prevented with the attitude of no war can be justified. 

2) there are no self defense wars.

War is brought on to us by someone who should not have started the war to begin with. That person/group has already started an unjust war. Our act of self defense is an act of preservation, not war. Our participation in said war is not our own doing. This includes acts of self defense & preservation years after wars or conquest, a continued attack on a people. A people that must survive if attacked in either circumstance.  

3) Immoral to kill
Morality is a standard for what we ought to do and ought not to do. Regardless to however objective or subjective we view morality to be we can understand the most important aspect relative to war: killing. 

Why we ought not to kill? This action prevents another's future and livelihood. If I am to kill a person, it is morally wrong because I am preventing that person's future. 

What about self defense? 
As stated above, some violence can be broken down to neutral, bad, or good. Self defense is neutral. 

Can we use violence for good then? 
In some cases. However, some like Self defense are neutral because it still carries detrimental effects similar to effects linked above and it still kills. 
The scalpel used to remove a tumor is not used to kill. 

Self defense may be acceptable in some cases but there is a fine line between moral and immoral. Best described in example: 
Stopping an attack by killing as only means to survive is moral. 
Stopping an attack and then killing is immoral. 

 However these aspects describe individual acts of violence, not war because of point 2 - no war occurs in self defense. 

In conclusion. 
There is no just war
No war can be justified. 

Round 2
Pro
#3
Thanks for accepting.

1) No choice 

Of course there are a lot of downsides to war, however, a lot of times people just don’t have any other option. There are other scenarios on top of the ones I described earlier in which people are forced to engage in war.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, 42 countries stepped in and made a coalition army, and expelled Iraqi military forces from Kuwait. The intervention of the American-led army was perfectly justified since Iraq had no right to invade Kuwait (https://crimeofaggression.info/role-of-the-icc/definition-of-the-crime-of-aggression/). So some wars that aren’t self-defense are justified.

The Union (in the American Civil War), didn’t want slavery to expand to the west, which would lead to more slave states. The Union had no other choice but to fight the confederacy which allowed and encouraged slavery. What was the Union supposed to do? Sit down and negotiate?


2) there are self-defense wars

While self-defense an act of preservation, it’s also an act of war. The Merriam-Webster defines war as «a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations» https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war and defines state of war as «a state of actual armed hostilities regardless of a formal declaration of war.» https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/state%20of%20war As soon as a country accepts to fight back, they’re still engaging in a war and it is justified for them to do so.

3) Immoral to kill

While it’s immoral to kill, in most wars, the parties couldn’t solve their differences through moral and peaceful methods.

So yes, there are a lot of situations in which things can only be resolved through a war despite how negative the effects of war can be, so a lot of times it's justified.


Con
#4
Thanks for debate. 
Thanks to the audience. 

Q&A
Kouen. Please answer the following

We are talking about war in its entirety, correct? So not just some acts of war but all acts within a given war?  

If there is a just war, is there an unjust war? 

What makes a war unjust? 

What is an act of war? 

Does an act of war represent or justify the war itself? 

If Iraq invades Kuwait only for capturing resources, and no one responds - no American lead coalition joins the fight - is the war justified? 



1) now, Kouen present the usual excuse for war. There is no other option.  Unfortunate that this is the same quote given so many times to look away from other options.

With so many bad things that happen during war. Why does one or two points outweigh the so many atrocities, deaths, etc. to make war in its entirety, justified? 
 

With that let's consider what is presented to us. In response to point 1 (negative impacts outweigh the reasons to start a war), pro gives examples of self defense. 

Gulf war: Kuwait is attacked first by Iraq. Kuwait and others respond to Iraq starting a war. 

American civil war: confederate states declare independence from u.s.a. and then attack. The union is attacked first by the confederacy. 

Ukrainian war: Ukraine is first attacked by Russia. 

The aggressors are starting the war in an act to violate another country, they are not performing self defense. The war exists because the aggressor. How can such wars ever be justified if in reality: 

Gulf war because Iraq wanted to conquer Kuwait. 
Civil war started because confederacy wanted to conquer the union and spread slavery. 
Ukraine is in a war because Russia wants to take its land. 

Which is why...

2) there are no self defense wars. 

War is brought on to us by someone who should not have started the war to begin with. 

Remembe that in self defense to be self defense, it occurs in response to an act. If I go out to kill someone with claim that they were going to kill me, that is not self defense. Starting a war to prevent an undesired act is not self defense. 

 As soon as a country accepts to fight back, they’re still engaging in a war and it is justified for them to do so.

How does this make the war, that they did not start, justified? How is the other person or group justified in starting the war? 

Even if Ukraine sits back and does nothing, they are still in a war with Russia because Russia is engaged. The only way to not have a war is to not start one.  

3) Morality on killing 
While it’s immoral to kill, in most wars, the parties couldn’t solve their differences through moral and peaceful methods. 

Now each situation is a bit different than the next. World war 2 did not start the same way as world war 1. We have not seen a war that starts in exact same as another. However, can we really say that any given group could not solve their problems? 

Can we be honest to ourselves in saying they tried every available option? 

We can say no. Russia does not need land from Ukraine. They can exist without it. Iraq does not need Kuwait, they have existed separate for decades if not centuries. Third Reich never needed to exist to make Germany a successful amd respected country - it has done so now for decades without nazism. 

Hindsight might be 20/20 here but the confederacy attacking the union the start the civil war was just plain stupid. 

All these wars are pointless and unjust. 

4 .  Haiti. 

Pro presented an example in round 1 where slaves fight for freedom. Their only choice. 

I point out that their act was a continued struggle and response to an unjust war and unjust action against them.

Haiti was conquered - war brought upon them. 

They are responding. Their response or desire to be free may be considered good but they are still a part of an unjust action and war not started by them. A conquest that should not have been. 

Also. We still have to consider the act that is immoral. An immoral act is not justified by a beneficial outcome. Otherwise we may justify several atrocities where some found the outcome beneficial. 
Round 3
Pro
#5
“We are talking about war in its entirety, correct? So not just some acts of war but all acts within a given war?” You can say that groups do bad things during wars, ok, that’s true, however, the act itself of settling disputes through armed conflicts is correct, as we have no other way too. You tackled that point further down the message so I’ll get back to that.

“If there is a just war, is there an unjust war?” Of course there is unjust war, my point is not that 100% of wars are justified. The question of the topic is “Can war be justified?”, not, “is war always justified?”.

“What makes a war unjust?” 🤔 That’s a good question. It’s up to you to answer since you’re arguing that war is never justifiable. I’d say spontaneously that it’s unjust when it could realistically have been prevented through non-violent means(which rarely happens). 

“What is an act of war?” I’ll define it right below.

"Does an act of war represent or justify the war itself?" In multiple instances yes, that’s what I’m arguing.

“If Iraq invades Kuwait only for capturing resources, and no one responds - no American lead coalition joins the fight - is the war justified?” It’s not a war if only one country attacks. A war is an armed fight between multiple states/countries/groups. So this question is out-of-the-topic. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/war#:~:text=a%20conflict%20carried%20on%20by%20force%20of%20arms%2C%20as%20between%20nations%20or%20between%20parties%20within%20a%20nation%3B%20warfare%2C%20as%20by%20land%2C%20sea%2C%20or%20air.

“With so many bad things that happen during war. Why does one or two points outweigh the so many atrocities, deaths, etc. to make war in its entirety, justified?”

I’ve already answered this in the last point. It’s because there is no other option. Sitting down and talking won’t resolve most world issues.

“The aggressors are starting the war in an act to violate another country, they are not performing self defense. The war exists because the aggressor.” 

That’s simply not true. Let’s say a country X attacks a country Y and the country Y doesn’t defend itself. It’s an invasion, fine, but it’s not a war. We have to distinguish terms.

“War is brought on to us by someone who should not have started the war to begin with.”

While it’s brought on to them, the fact that it’s called a war is because they’re opposing themselves to the other party instead of letting them take their resources and territories. If a person A beats up a person B and the person B doesn’t defend themselves, we’re not going to call this a fight. While, if the person B fights back to defend themselves, it’s at this moment that it becomes a fight.

I said earlier “As soon as a country accepts to fight back, they’re still engaging in a war and it is justified for them to do so.” and con replied “How does this make the war, that they did not start, justified? How is the other person or group justified in starting the war?”

To settle a different. Ex: Iraq believing Kuwait belongs to them.

“Even if Ukraine sits back and does nothing, they are still in a war with Russia because Russia is engaged. The only way to not have a war is to not start one.”

This directly contradicts the definition of a war, as according to the definition of war, if Ukraine does nothing it’s not a war.  

- Morality on killing

I had said that “While it’s immoral to kill, in most wars, the parties couldn’t solve their differences through moral and peaceful methods.” The con replied “Now each situation is a bit different than the next. World war 2 did not start the same way as world war 1. We have not seen a war that starts in exact same as another. However, can we really say that any given group could not solve their problems?”

Well if you have solutions that would have realistically prevented the wars I’ve given as examples you’re free to say them. (Spoiler: There are none.)

“Can we be honest to ourselves in saying they tried every available option?” We can be honest to ourselves in saying that we have centuries of historical data and this is sadly a way we found to settle conflicts, sitting down and negotiating doesn’t always work.

“Russia does not need land from Ukraine. They can exist without it. Iraq does not need Kuwait, they have existed separately for decades if not centuries. Third Reich never needed to exist to make Germany a successful and respected country - it has done so now for decades without nazism.”

True that they didn’t need these lands but we could’ve said this about life in general. It’s not because a group of people doesn’t 100% need something or they’ll all die that they shouldn’t settle their conflict or territorial claims or population claims. Now I can’t say ‘All ways are justified since the different parties claims something’, a lot aren’t, but I also can’t say ‘People can live the way they are so no war is justified’, as a lot are.

- Haiti. 

“Haiti was conquered - war brought upon them.” Throughout this argument, you’re saying that Haiti was responding, true, but they started that war. No matter what happened before, we’re specifically discussing about if the justification for a war can be valid, and in this case, it is, even if you say there are elements that led to that war, that was still a war started by the revolutionaries. https://historyincharts.com/timeline-of-the-haitian-revolution/#:~:text=1789%2D1790%20%E2%80%93,slave%20revolt%20begins

“Also. We still have to consider the act that is immoral. An immoral act is not justified by a beneficial outcome. Otherwise, we may justify several atrocities where some found the outcome beneficial.” Their declaring war was simply a result of French atrocities. We can’t say that Haiti’s decision was immoral, they deserved their freedom and deserved to be treated like the humans they are. This war was perfectly justified.

Also, this was just an example, perhaps too specific, but my point was that when a group of people feels oppressed by another group of people, starting a war so they can have their own territory is justified. It doesn’t have to be as bad as slavery. 

Ex. the Mexican War of Independence leading to Mexico’s independence from Spain. Mexicans as a whole weren’t slaves, however, they felt oppressed(and were oppressed), they felt that there was a social hierarchy(and there was a social hierarchy), so it was justified for them to start a war for their independence.

Au revoir!

Con
#6
Thanks for interesting debate. 
Thank you readers for taking time to check this out. 

Starting with q&a then any parts for point 1 to 4 from previous rounds. 

Q&a 
The question "what is war," needs to be addressed first. 
It’s not a war if only one country attacks. A war is an armed fight between multiple states/countries/groups.

Let’s say a country X attacks a country Y and the country Y doesn’t defend itself. It’s an invasion, fine, but it’s not a war. We have to distinguish terms.

Correction. Its not a war if only one country attacks no other country.  
noun
  1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

  2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations:
Definition provided by pro does not distinguish how any party should behave whilst being attacked. 

The definition of war does not distinguish length of time other than "usually prolonged."
Usual is only an average. 

 Nor do we see any descriptor that limits war to violence that is reciprocal or met with resistance because war  includes  attacking when an enemy is unaware.

Ex: lets say group X invades group Y. Group Y is unable to provide adequate response to invading x. X kills thousands and conquers Y. Does not matter if Y is able to get a shot off or not, this invasion is still a war. 


Of course there is unjust war. 
“What makes a war unjust?” 

That’s a good question. It’s up to you to answer since you’re arguing that war is never justifiable. I’d say spontaneously that it’s unjust when it could realistically have been prevented through non-violent means(which rarely happens). 

I wish there was a more definitive response because this vague reasoning can apply to unjust wars. Leaving this debate to subjective opinion rather an objective conclusion. Where any war could be viewed as just and unjust at the same time. And both answers would be correct. 

If we applied pro's logic of "no other option" to cambodia's year zero, then genocide can be argued as just. 

"Does an act of war represent or justify the war itself?" In multiple instances yes, that’s what I’m arguing.

If we look at haiti example, the start of war is to be free from slavery. This pro considers as just reasoning. The start of war is just therefore the war is just. 

Pro said american civil war  was just - but the start of the civil war was to increase/secure slavery. 

This conflict between why these wars are just should expose error in Pro's reasoning. I try to highlight this with point 2 (no such thing as self defense war). 

The group starting the war is doing so for unjust reasons. Why are we saying those wars are just? 
 
A group may be just in participating in a war but that does not mean the war itself is just. 

 Ex: 
England invades and enslaves african countries? They had no other option because the locals told them to piss off. England is now justified in their attack and therefore the war is justified. 
 
This may be an oversimplification but we need to see the errors in thinking that "no other option" is enough to justify war . 

"How is the other person or group justified in starting the war?”

To settle a different. Ex: Iraq believing Kuwait belongs to them.
Here is another part of the error. 
Just because Iraq thinks x doesnt make it true. How does this then make their actions justified by an opinion? 

We can not believe a war to be just if justification relies on subjective opinions. 


Well if you have solutions that would have realistically prevented the wars I’ve given as examples you’re free to say them. (Spoiler: There are none.)
There are. We need to adjust our attitudes away from doing what ever we want for our own greedy wants and actively try to solve conflict based on equal results. For all examples given. None of this occurs or its entirely one sided. In which the one side who is greedy and does not want to find options is the one who attacks. Creating another unjust war. 

1. Negatives of war outweigh positives. 
Which means no war could  be justified because people use the positives to justify the war. Links provided round 1 for support.
I asked pro what could outweigh negatives like ptsd, environmental damage or killing other humans. 

Pro's response is "no other option." 

Above in q&a I show the error in leaving justification to "no other option," because it can apply to wars that are started for unjust reasons as well. 

Pro said there were unjust wars. 

2. No self defense war
War is based heavily on who starts it and why it is started. 

I must emphasise again that a war is not just because a participant acts in self defense. If we do, then all wars are just because all wars have  countries/groups acting in self defense as only one country/group is needed to start a war. 

However, pro said there are unjust wars. There is contradictions in their reasoning. 

3 & 4 morality

 Haiti. 

Throughout this argument, you’re saying that Haiti was responding, true, 
I was saying there is no real distinction between haiti being conquered to haiti having a revolution.  Although there may be time distancing the start of one vs the start of another event, They are the same war. I gave my reasonings in round 2. Highlighting a continued response from the time being conquered.  


 [Haiti] war was perfectly justified.

Slavery would have ended regardless to haiti revolution. That was a temporary and localized event.  

We can all agree that ending slavery is good. However, our actions have consequences. Even ones with desired outcomes. Unfortunately the outcome does not justify the means. Otherwise, like much of pro's approach to justifying war, we will find ourselves justifying immoral and unjust wars as well. 

If what we do to justify one war we like to justifying wars we do not like. Then that does not really justify any war.